Ask a Christian...

[Non sequitur]

You say: “Unanswerable questions are useless.”

God is an answer to these “Unanswerable questions”, but that does not mean there is not another alternative answer.

We know life exists, but do not know how it would even be possible to go from just chemical reactions to life, yet God would be a possibility to make that happen.

We know: the more we know the more we realize we do not know making everything increasingly complex and increasingly harder to conceive of a mechanism to randomly produce the desired complex results.

Unless you redefine “nothing” as being something, nothing comes from nothing and something cannot come from nothing, so something has always existed. If something has always had to exist why would that something not include intelligence since there is intelligence in existence?

In this case, god is offered as *the* answer, not jut a viable one.

 

[bling]

In this case, god is offered as *the* answer, not jut a viable one.

Logically we look at the alternative and go with the most likely if possible, so is God the most likely alternative?

 

[Non sequitur]

Logically we look at the alternative and go with the most likely if possible, so is God the most likely alternative?

So, you are only looking at one alternative?

 

[Chriliman]

You appear to have restated it correctly. I can see how you could arrive there, but not how one could be sure (to the extent they are).

Like with sceince, i think it can only take things so far. Anything after that is on a sliding scale. But never a "truth", as Christian seems to claim

Hmm...is what you're saying a 'truth' that you expect us to accept? If so, then you've defeated your own position. If not, then don't be surprised when we accept something else, rather than what you've presented above.

 

[Non sequitur]

Hmm...is what you're saying a 'truth' that you expect us to accept? If so, then you've defeated your own position. If not, then don't be surprised when we accept something else, rather than what you've presented above.

Since I was replying to someone else, maybe you can restate what you are saying?

Maybe just address the OP?

 

[Chriliman]

Since I was replying to someone else, maybe you can restate what you are saying?

Maybe just address the OP?

Sorry, I agree with Viacruise assessment about the OP and thought I'd interject some thoughts there.

 

[Non sequitur]

Sorry, I agree with Viacruise assessment about the OP and thought I'd interject some thoughts there.

My question is more about the assured reality of that truth. I can see how many people arrive at their conclusions.

To elaborate and make an analogy, as I think I did before, I see this as someone only watching TV being so sure that what is presented is the reality of things.

If your only interaction with reality is through the information you get from the TV, I'm not understanding why one wouldn't inherently question the source of that information.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You appear to have restated it correctly. I can see how you could arrive there, but not how one could be sure (to the extent they are).

Like with sceince, i think it can only take things so far. Anything after that is on a sliding scale. But never a "truth", as Christian seems to claim

Then isn't this basically an argument in favor of solipsism?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Non sequitur]

Then isn't this basically an argument in favor of solipsism?

-CryptoLutheran

This isn't an argument, for anything, but a question.

 

[Hieronymus]

Reality is not limited to the natural sciences and its domain.
If you want to assess if God, gods and / or 'the supernatural' exists you'll have to assess the evidence for their existence, of which there is a whole bunch.
Since these are supernatural things, a natural(istic) paradigm will not suffice.
Moreover, when you investigate the origins of the natural (basically our space-time reality), you're probably looking for a supernatural cause, for things don't create / cause / bring forth / facilitate / etcetera themselves.

 

[ViaCrucis]

This isn't an argument, for anything, but a question.

Alright. The brain takes in external stimuli through the senses, and forms a picture of the external world on the basis of this stimuli. Fire burns. Water is wet. Ice is cold. The sun is bright. As rational creatures we are capable of conscious thought, including the ability to form a theory of mind--I have a mind, and other minds exist also independent of my own. We communicate what happens in our brains through language, in particular the spoken/written word by which we can communicate very complex ideas from which, ultimately, civilization can happen. We have developed a method by which to measure observable phenomenon and make sense of the external world, that's science. And science does an expert job in giving us understanding about how the external world operates, even in cases where our own immediate perceptions don't readily help us--often through another important discipline, mathematics.

Part of that language, civilization, society thing is that as human beings dwelling in complex social groups we share our ideas through language. From this springs poetry, art, philosophy, music, and religion. In many cases human beings need to make a decision to believe a thing or not believe it, in some cases this is made easy by direct experiential knowledge (e.g. yes, fire burns, I believe it because I've been burned by fire or I saw my friend get burned by fire) or through (again) the scientific method which does an expert job at making sense of observable reality through its own methodology. But not all ideas are as simple as this, in many cases ideas may really be entirely subjective, such as whether or not a particular piece of music is good or bad. In other cases it's because we are discussing ideas that may or may not correspond to objective reality, but with which we have no immediate access because it lay outside of our senses. For example, do gods exist? We have no testable means to discover whether or not this is true, all we have are ideas and, occasionally, the claims of unique experiences which are unable to be ascertained as true or not. In which case we then formulate a belief on whether or not we regard it to be trustworthy, and the processes by which we reach a conclusion on whether a belief is trustworthy can be as unique to an individual as the individual themselves.

As a Christian I am part of a religious tradition and community that goes back two thousand years to when a relatively small group of Jewish people became convinced that the historical figure known as Jesus of Nazareth was, in fact, the long-awaited Messiah sent by the God who made Himself known to Abraham, Jacob, and Moses; and that this Jesus though having suffered and died by the hands of the Romans, being crucified, did not remain dead but rose from the dead, ascended to God, and will return at some time as judge of the living and the dead. Thus arose from within the complex socio-political climate of 1st century Judea a Messianic community centered around Jesus of Nazareth, with a set of theological ideas, based upon the claims of some in this early community to having known Jesus and witnessed, first hand, His own resurrection. I receive these beliefs as true as a matter of faith. Others, very clearly, do not hold to these same beliefs, they may hold to other beliefs entirely, or they may subscribe to no sort of religious dogma whatsoever.

How can I hold to these things as true? Faith. Faith that these beliefs correspond to objective reality, even if there is no way to demonstrate that to be the case. I remain, nonetheless, a meme-carrier of this particular religious tradition and community because I maintain, by faith, that what this religious tradition and community has continued to belief down through the centuries does, in fact, correlate to reality.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Tolworth John]

Not sure where else you would start.

What sensations do you experience that do not come from your mind, but outside sources, that are not interpreted by your mind?

While everything is interpreted by our mind, our experience of life teaches us that the mind is not all there is.
There are material things ontside our minds that affect us and there are non material things outside of our mind that affect us.

 

[Chriliman]

My question is more about the assured reality of that truth. I can see how many people arrive at their conclusions.

To elaborate and make an analogy, as I think I did before, I see this as someone only watching TV being so sure that what is presented is the reality of things.

If your only interaction with reality is through the information you get from the TV, I'm not understanding why one wouldn't inherently question the source of that information.

I think they could inherently question the source of the information and realize theyre only watching tv.

 

[Non sequitur]

Alright. The brain takes in external stimuli through the senses, and forms a picture of the external world on the basis of this stimuli. Fire burns. Water is wet. Ice is cold. The sun is bright. As rational creatures we are capable of conscious thought, including the ability to form a theory of mind--I have a mind, and other minds exist also independent of my own. We communicate what happens in our brains through language, in particular the spoken/written word by which we can communicate very complex ideas from which, ultimately, civilization can happen. We have developed a method by which to measure observable phenomenon and make sense of the external world, that's science. And science does an expert job in giving us understanding about how the external world operates, even in cases where our own immediate perceptions don't readily help us--often through another important discipline, mathematics.

Part of that language, civilization, society thing is that as human beings dwelling in complex social groups we share our ideas through language. From this springs poetry, art, philosophy, music, and religion. In many cases human beings need to make a decision to believe a thing or not believe it, in some cases this is made easy by direct experiential knowledge (e.g. yes, fire burns, I believe it because I've been burned by fire or I saw my friend get burned by fire) or through (again) the scientific method which does an expert job at making sense of observable reality through its own methodology. But not all ideas are as simple as this, in many cases ideas may really be entirely subjective, such as whether or not a particular piece of music is good or bad. In other cases it's because we are discussing ideas that may or may not correspond to objective reality, but with which we have no immediate access because it lay outside of our senses. For example, do gods exist? We have no testable means to discover whether or not this is true, all we have are ideas and, occasionally, the claims of unique experiences which are unable to be ascertained as true or not. In which case we then formulate a belief on whether or not we regard it to be trustworthy, and the processes by which we reach a conclusion on whether a belief is trustworthy can be as unique to an individual as the individual themselves.

As a Christian I am part of a religious tradition and community that goes back two thousand years to when a relatively small group of Jewish people became convinced that the historical figure known as Jesus of Nazareth was, in fact, the long-awaited Messiah sent by the God who made Himself known to Abraham, Jacob, and Moses; and that this Jesus though having suffered and died by the hands of the Romans, being crucified, did not remain dead but rose from the dead, ascended to God, and will return at some time as judge of the living and the dead. Thus arose from within the complex socio-political climate of 1st century Judea a Messianic community centered around Jesus of Nazareth, with a set of theological ideas, based upon the claims of some in this early community to having known Jesus and witnessed, first hand, His own resurrection. I receive these beliefs as true as a matter of faith. Others, very clearly, do not hold to these same beliefs, they may hold to other beliefs entirely, or they may subscribe to no sort of religious dogma whatsoever.

How can I hold to these things as true? Faith. Faith that these beliefs correspond to objective reality, even if there is no way to demonstrate that to be the case. I remain, nonetheless, a meme-carrier of this particular religious tradition and community because I maintain, by faith, that what this religious tradition and community has continued to belief down through the centuries does, in fact, correlate to reality.

-CryptoLutheran

Thanks.

So, it seems that faith is the key. Faith in what (part), exactly?

 

[Non sequitur]

Reality is not limited to the natural sciences and its domain.
If you want to assess if God, gods and / or 'the supernatural' exists you'll have to assess the evidence for their existence, of which there is a whole bunch.
Since these are supernatural things, a natural(istic) paradigm will not suffice.
Moreover, when you investigate the origins of the natural (basically our space-time reality), you're probably looking for a supernatural cause, for things don't create / cause / bring forth / facilitate / etcetera themselves.

Correct. Reality is limited only to reality.

There is evidence for things, but how they appear (God, gods and/or 'the supernatural') does not dictate their reality.

You just asserted there is a whole bunch of evidence for 'their' existence. Before you follow that line of thinking through, what was this evidence?

Unknown/unknowable/unexplained does or does not equal evidence for a cause, just evidence that whatever that unknown/unknowable/unexplained occurred.

 

[Non sequitur]

I think they could inherently question the source of the information and realize theyre only watching tv.

That's all they've known or seen of the world, so I don't see why they'd decide to start questioning it.

The concept of 'TV' would not have the same meaning to them, as it would you or I.

 

[Non sequitur]

While everything is interpreted by our mind, our experience of life teaches us that the mind is not all there is.
There are material things ontside our minds that affect us and there are non material things outside of our mind that affect us.

If 'our experience of life' is interpreted by our mind, you can't say fairly say 'that the mind is not all there is'. Nor can you speak of things outside your mind.

You can't have everything go through your mind and say there is more than your mind; that's a contradiction.

And this was question.

 

[Hieronymus]

Correct. Reality is limited only to reality.

There is evidence for things, but how they appear (God, gods and/or 'the supernatural') does not dictate their reality.

You just asserted there is a whole bunch of evidence for 'their' existence. Before you follow that line of thinking through, what was this evidence?

Everything that is relevant to the subject basically, like
- what makes the world go round (not literally )
- history
- religions (including modern ideas)
- certain (recorded) phenomena and experiences (including testimonies)
- what we call 'creation' (universe, living nature) and the question of their origins
- the enormous controversies surrounding the subject
All there is to know and / or investigate about aforementioned things paints a picture, if you let it, pointing to the existence of a God and gods, and the God of the Bible and Jesus Christ in particular, but also God's adversary and his gang (both on earth and in the unseen realm).
That's why "Ye who seek truth shall find peace.", because there is a Saviour.
But usually people only seek truth diligently when they're desperate for it.
When life goes quite as planned people don't feel the need to seek truth or doubt the common consensus.
Who is 'successful (enough) in life' often lacks the humility to submit to the truth.
Putting your trust in God is usually the last thing a modern human wants to have to do.
It helps when you have little other choice.
Isn't life strange?
Putting your trust in God is the most difficult thing.
Believing He exists is a lot easier.
(YMMV)

 

[Non sequitur]

Everything that is relevant to the subject basically, like
- what makes the world go round (not literally )
- history
- religions (including modern ideas)
- certain (recorded) phenomena and experiences (including testimonies)
- what we call 'creation' (universe, living nature) and the question of their origins
- the enormous controversies surrounding the subject
All there is to know and / or investigate about aforementioned things paints a picture, if you let it, pointing to the existence of a God and gods, and the God of the Bible and Jesus Christ in particular, but also God's adversary and his gang (both on earth and in the unseen realm).
That's why "Ye who seek truth shall find peace.", because there is a Saviour.
But usually people only seek truth diligently when they're desperate for it.
When life goes quite as planned people don't feel the need to seek truth or doubt the common consensus.
Who is 'successful (enough) in life' often lacks the humility to submit to the truth.
Putting your trust in God is usually the last thing a modern human wants to have to do.
It helps when you have little other choice.
Isn't life strange?
Putting your trust in God is the most difficult thing.
Believing He exists is a lot easier.
(YMMV)

That doesn't answer the question I asked, but thank you for your response.

 

[Hieronymus]

That doesn't answer the question I asked, but thank you for your response.

Your question was what the evidence was, and i answered that question.
Or did you expect me to write a book here?